Trump’s Fascism versus Obama’s Fascism

Barack Obama was the only U.S. President who at the United Nations defended nazism — racist fascism — and Holocaust-denial. It received almost no reporting by the press at the time (or subsequently). But his successor President Donald Trump could end up being removed from office because he said that racist fascists are just the same as are people who demonstrate publicly against them. Trump’s politically stupid (not to say callous) remark became viral, and apparently the press (which had ignored Obama’s defense of nazism at the U.N.) just won’t let go of Trump’s statement unless and until he becomes replaced by his even-more-far-right Vice President, Mike Pence.

Why is there this intense press-coverage of Trump’s support of racist fascism, when there wasn’t of Obama’s (which was actually far more meaningful)? The answer comes closer if we ponder first a different question: How could the Republican Party, which is right-wing at its core, condemn a Democratic Party President who goes out of his way at the U.N. to protect today’s nazis? That wouldn’t be politically practical for Republican politicians to complain about (a Democrat’s being too far to the right); so, they didn’t do it. Similarly, no Democrat will criticize a Republican for being too leftist. There may be a few exceptions, but that’s the general rule: Successful politicians don’t offend their base.

But that still doesn’t fully answer why the press ignored it when Obama defended nazism at the U.N. The rest of the answer comes when we recognize that America’s press gets its cues from the two political Parties. If the ‘opposition’ (and not just the President’s own Party) is hiding something egregious that a President is doing or has done (such as happened there with Obama, and with many other conservative policies that Obama executed), then the press will hide it, too. Republicans weren’t calling attention to Obama’s defense of nazism, because they’d then be offending some of their own supporters. (Democrats weren’t calling attention to it, because a Democrat was doing this, which didn’t fit the ‘progressive’ storyline.) And, if the ‘opposition’ isn’t pointing it out, then neither will the press. The matter will then just be ignored — which is what happened. This was thus bipartisan non-reporting, of what Obama did. There was a lot of that while Obama was President.

In other words: America’s press are tools of, and are led by, the same people who actually, deep down, control both of America’s political Parties — the billionaires. They control both politics, and also the press. Numerous social-science studies have shown that the wealthier a person is, the likelier that person is to be politically conservative — at least to the extent that political conservatism doesn’t threaten his or her particular business and financial interests. As America’s billionaires have come to control America’s politics, this country has been moving farther and farther to the right, except on the relatively few issues (such as immigration, gay rights, etc.) where their own economic interests are served better by a progressive position (or, at least, by a position that seems to most people to be progressive).

Trump’s problem here is that he’s too obviously playing to his Party’s base. Obama didn’t need to do that, because he had massive support from billionaires, and he was a much better liar than Trump, good enough to keep many progressive voters with him even after he had already shafted them in his actual policies. For example, when Obama dropped ‘the public option’ as soon as he became elected, he was excused for it because most Americans thought he was simply being practical and avoiding an ‘unnecessary’ conflict with the opposite Party in Congress. This view ignored that he gave up on it even as being a bargaining-chip to get concessions from congressional Republicans to drive new legislation to be more progressive. Obama had no interest in progressivism. Actually, Obama didn’t want to offend his mega-donors. He thus handed the task of drafting the Obamacare law to the conservative Democrat, and public-option opponent, Max Baucus, instead of to the progressive Democrat and public-option supporter, Ted Kennedy, who desperately wanted (and expected) to have the opportunity to draft it.

Both Trump and Obama (in their actions, if not also in their words) are proponents of what Benito Mussolini called “Corporationism” — big-corporate control of the government, which Mussolini more-commonly referred to as “fascism.” President Trump has been widely condemned both here in the U.S. and around the world (which his predecessor President Barack Obama never was), for his recent blatant statement equating the worst of fascists, which are racist fascists, as being comparable to the people who in Charlottesville Virginia had marched and demonstrated against racist fascists and who were violently attacked and one of them killed by racist fascists, against whom they had been protesting. Trump was equating anti-fascists with fascists, and he even equated racist fascists — ideological nazis — with the people who were protesting specifically against nazism. Apparently, the press won’t let go of it. They treat this event as if top-level U.S. nazism were unprecedented in today’s post-WW-II America — as if this nation were still anti-nazi (as it had been in FDR’s White House), and as if this incident with Trump says something only about Trump, and not also, and far more meaningfully, about today’s American government, including Trump’s own immediate predecessor-in-office, and also about America’s current press-institution, and about what it has become.

As this reporter had headlined on 24 November 2014, “U.S. Among Only 3 Countries at U.N. Officially Backing Nazism & Holocaust-Denial; Israel Parts Company from Them; Germany Abstains”. Obama and his friend and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power were unapologetic about having done that at the U.N., and Obama’s U.N. representative continued in that vein. As I headlined a few months later, on 21 June 2015, “America’s U.N. Ambassador Continues Standing Up for Nazis”. Both of those two news-articles were submitted to all of the U.S. and also to much of the European mainstream — and additionally to some of the ‘alt-news’ — international-news media, but each of the two articles was published only in around a half-dozen of only alternative-news sites. The ‘news’media (especially the mainstream ones) weren’t nearly as concerned about Obama’s blatantly racist-fascist, and specifically anti-Russian, actions, as they are concerned today, about the current U.S. President’s bending-over-backwards to retain his support from America’s racist-fascist or nazi voters, whom he apparently considers an essential part of his base. (Why else would he even say such a thing?)

Whereas Obama was imposing an actual nazi international campaign (via a violent anti-democratic coup, followed by an ethnic-cleansing campaign to cement it) in which his U.N. Ambassador played her necessary role, Trump was politically supporting an important portion of his voting-base, but not doing anything in actual policy-fact — at the U.N. or anywhere else — such as Obama had done. But the press focuses on Trump as if he were initiating the acceptability of nazism in the U.S. body-politic. Trump wasn’t.

With all of the decades that have passed after World War II, not only Americans but also publics elsewhere, including publics in nations that America considers to be ‘allies’, such as Israel, seem to have lost any consciousness they might have had in the wake of Hitler’s defeat, about what racist fascism — what the ideology (and not just the German political party, where it had an initial capital letter) nazism — actually was, and what it meant. It wasn’t just anti-Semitic fascism that had been defeated in that war, but anti-Korean fascism, and anti-Chinese fascism, and anti-Russian fascism, and more forms of racist capitalistic dictatorship, the nazi ideology, which were defeated in WW II. During John F. Kennedy’s Presidency, the U.S. federal government very reluctantly started to deal with this country’s deepseated residual institutional racism against America’s Blacks; but, still, the ethnocentrism in America — even among Blacks and Jews — remained so pronounced, so that President Obama on 28 May 2014 could, without shame or any political embarrassment, tell the graduating class of future U.S. military leaders at West Point:

The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.

But the world is changing with accelerating speed. This presents opportunity, but also new dangers. We know all too well, after 9/11, just how technology and globalization has put power once reserved for states in the hands of individuals, raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm. Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts and failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago.

It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead — not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.

Now, this question isn’t new. At least since George Washington served as Commander-in-Chief, there have been those who warned against, foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic wellbeing. Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve. And not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many Americans.

A different view from interventionists from the left and right says that we ignore these conflicts at our own peril; that America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos.

He said that all nations other than the U.S. are “dispensable.” He said that the BRICS countries and “rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums,” and that “It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead — not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.” He said that “conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are … ours to solve.” He derided “self-described realists” who didn’t share his international idealism, of his own nation’s seeking out, instead of warning “against, foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic wellbeing.” He said that “America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos,” and that George Washington was wrong.

He was saying that Hitler and Hirohito were right; that they had merely led the ‘wrong’ countries.

The ultimate insult was that this was coming from a man who considered himslef to be a Black — as if he were in the tradition of Martin Luther King, who had urged America to quit its invasion of Vietnam. Instead, Obama invaded and wrecked Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen.

Well, that wasn’t actually quite the ultimate insult: the ultimate insult was that Blacks continued to believe in him, and never turned against that nazi. They evidently keep what some of them call (as if it were a racial trait) ‘White man’s values’.

Values are not a racial trait, but stupidity and small-mindedness are the human norm everywhere, and no nation is ‘indispensable’ — far less, is any ‘the one indispensable nation’: not ancient Rome, not Germany, not Japan, not the U.S. — none, at all.

Trump’s foreign policies seem to be mainly aiming to out-do his predecessor’s. But, in no way is Trump yet the nazi that Obama proved himself to be. Trump could turn out to be that bad, if the people who are urging him to intensify America’s war against Russia and/or against Iran have their way. The “neoconservatives” (the foreign-policy ideology that’s sponsored by America’s billionaires of both the Republican and the Democratic Parties) seem still to be basically in control. Trump nonetheless could turn out to be the idealist that Obama, Hitler, and Hirohito, were, but there’s at least the possibility that he will instead turn out to be one of “the self-described realists” whom Obama had derided. Trump hasn’t yet exposed his true self, to the extent that Obama did during his eight years. But the ‘news’media are already calling Trump a “White racist.” It seems that the people who cheered-on Obama’s nazism (except when they said that Obama was being ‘too cautious’ about it) don’t like Trump, at all.

But, are America’s billionaires really that eager to replace Trump by Pence? One might wonder how far this campaign will go.

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

Comment

Name:

E-mail:

55 Comments

We present an interesting interpretation of the political scientist Alexandre Roussine of the law S722 “To counter the aggression of the Iranian and Russian governments”. The terms used are those of the author. Our comment at the end of the article.

The United States Congress, in Act S722, gives the United States administration a period of 180 days to “identify the most influential Russian oligarchs and those who are actively involved in foreign policy activities. Assess their capital, signs of corruption, sources of income and their assets, including those of their family members. Analyze private state structures, identify foreign affiliates. [Document in English and Russian, excerpt from Law S722]

The next section of the law states that the US president should demand that Russia withdraw its troops from the territory of Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia), Ukraine (Novorossya and Crimea) and Moldova (Transnistria) – and transfer the troops Border control to the authorities of those countries.

It seems clear that the information that the Congress asks to collect within 180 days is in fact already collected for a long time; Moreover, it is unthinkable that Vladimir Putin should order the withdrawal of Russian troops to maintain peace in Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria; In Novorossya Russia has no troops, and Crimea is a Russian territory. All these demands hide something else.

According to Alexandre Roussine, this means that Washington gives the Russian elite 180 days to distance itself from Vladimir Putin and gives Putin himself and the ruling elite 180 days to leave the Kremlin. This deadline corresponds to the period of the next presidential election in Russia.

For the drafters of the S722, the Kremlin now has 3 options:

1- Accept American conditions, which they themselves do not believe: Abandoning the Crimea and supporting the Novorossya would be considered a betrayal by the Russian people.

Putin and his entourage have the possibility of sending the Americans to pasture, but for the drafters of the S722 law it would be an act of suicide: When the elite begin to lose its assets, Putin will not stay long in its place. The oligarchs may decide to close the banks and stores belonging to them, indicating in their press releases that Vladimir Putin is in fact responsible. This will trigger enormous street movements, not revolutionary activists but ordinary Russian citizens to whom the forces of order would join. Vladimir Putin will only be able to withdraw.

So it remains the 3rd option: Leave the power using the 180 day delay to recoup their financial assets.

Washington has put the Kremlin before a clear choice: Either Putin, his entourage and the economic elite lose everything – both power and their assets, or they voluntarily give up power by saving their assets, within 180 days.

Why did Washington give the Kremlin such a choice?

Washington could have decided to block the assets of all Russian people and companies “tied” to the government, striking the Russian elite and pushing it to a coup in the Kremlin, to get rid of Vladimir Putin. Washington could do this without difficulty by January-February to have enough time to then promote their candidate for the presidency of Russia.

But for Washington, this option is too risky, the Russian reactions would then be too dangerous in case of complete blocking of their assets. In such a case, even if the elite dismissed Vladimir Putin, it would put in his place not a pro-Western “Kassyanov” but someone much more aggressive and dangerous for Western countries.

That is why the “soft” option was selected, under which the Russian elite and the ruling elite received a warning and 180 days for Putin and his entourage to pack their bags and leave the Kremlin. This could also allow some Russian officials to take sides for the Americans who would give them the opportunity to pursue their business in exchange for benevolence with American companies. (Rusreinfo Note: Remembering the Yeltsin era where the country was Sold to American companies …). This delay allows the Russian elite to get rid of Putin and his entourage, in a planned fashion, and not in an emergency, which can take on an uncontrollable character and end in a revolution.

The coming months should show the “moment of truth”: Either the Russian elite will gather around Vladimir Putin, or it will do it against him and for the United States. The ball is thrown, the roulette turns with consequences that can shake the whole world.

RusReinfo’s comment: We do not share the analysis of the author: On the one hand the massive popular support enjoyed by Vladimir Putin will prevent any uprising against him. On the other hand, Vladimir Putin showed his ability to subdue the “oligarchs” when they became a threat to Russia when he took office and in the years that followed.
We believe that Russia will simply not react to this ultimatum. But a complete blockage of its assets abroad will be considered a declaration of war and will then lead to adequate reactions in this kind of situation.

I have seen similar analyses of the probable intent, or at least probable effect, of the law in question. I also tend to believe that in fact the intent is as stated – removing Comrade P…but that this is a futile goal. And these are obvious qualities of the situation.

Therefore one is obliged to assume that the probable design is to gather political power within the halls or “clubs” of the elites for a more dramatic ploy – yet to become obvious – when the present 180 days gambit fails. It’s a “kick the can”…the big event remains…

The consequences of the 180-day scenario seem very unlikely. Mr. Putin is much stronger vis-a-vis the oligarchs now than when he became President in 2000, driving Gusinsky and Nezvlin (wanted for murder) to Israel, Beryozovsky to England (he’d renounced Judaism to help his run for the Duma), Khodorkovsky into prison for 10 years. The other three or four knuckled under, and agreed to stay out of national politics (Abramovich was elected Governor Chukia, opposite the Bering Strait, for a term), and have. There has been no indication since then in any way that Mr. Putin’s support derives from the remaining or new oligarchs, only the fatuous U.S. sanctions against them, thinking the 1% control Russia the same as they do America. As long as Mr. Putin retains the support of the patriotic silovoviki, which he seems to have, plus the populace, he is effectively in vulnerable. The Constitution Law on Emergency situations (http://www.legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/4290) would gives president power to revoke, annul, or suppress any of the actions contemplated.

.War between Russia and the West seems nearly inevitable. No self-respecting nation facing inexorable encirclement by an alliance of hostile neighbors can allow such pressures and forces to continue indefinitely. Eventually it must protect its interests through military action. Indeed, Russia already has resorted to military action: in Georgia in 2008, after that Russian neighbor initiated a war with Moscow designed to severely curtail Russia’s influence in its own neighborhood, and in eastern Ukraine, after the West encouraged and fostered a 2014 revolution that upended an elected Ukrainian leader whose foreign and economic policies tilted toward Russia.

And consider Russia’s territorial fate since the West’s Cold War victory over Soviet Bolshevism. Before that momentous development, which was entirely necessary and laudable, the Soviet Union had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad. Now that fabled Russian city, renamed St. Petersburg once again after the obliteration of the ideological menace of Soviet communism, resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces. Moscow was protected behind 1,200 miles of controlled territory during the Cold War; now that distance is two hundred miles.

This represents a monumental shift in Russia’s geopolitical situation, and much of it was, and remains, a cause of celebration. The Soviet yoke over the peoples of Eastern Europe had to be removed, and the West’s long Cold War struggle, particularly the early initiatives under Harry Truman and the final push under Ronald Reagan, represents a heroic tale of calibrated resistance and tireless resolve.

But Western intrusion into traditional Russian spheres of influence, areas under the sway of Moscow for three centuries or more, represents a highly provocative and destabilizing policy. Ukraine was one such Russian sphere of influence. Georgia was another. So was Belarus. So was Serbia. All have been subject to Western designs to one degree or another, including serious U.S. initiatives to dismember Serbia and get Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.

Further, the West has offered no expressions indicating what might be the limitations of its encirclement plans. Prominent Americans talk freely of “regime change” in the country, and the U.S. government has sponsored NGO activities designed to foment antigovernment activities there of the kind that stirred a pro-Russian leader of Ukraine—the corrupt but duly elected Viktor Yanukovych—to flee his own country upon threat of death. America’s promiscuous post–Cold War activities in support of regime change—in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen—lend weight to suspicions that it harbors similar views toward Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Indeed, the demonization of Putin by America’s intelligentsia has been nearly unprecedented in peacetime. Hillary Clinton invokes Hitler as a comparative figure and, while others have stopped short of that kind of rhetorical excess, the attitude remains the same. He is evil and presides over a menacing, conquest-hungry nation; he and his country must be stopped, curtailed, declawed. There is no recognition in any of this that Russians may view themselves, with at least some validity, as a beleaguered nation vis-à-vis America and its allies.

Donald Trump was elected in part to change all that. As the University of Southern California’s Robert David English notes in his excellent recent Foreign Affairs essay, Trump repeatedly asserted in his first press conference that it would be “positive,” “good,” or “great” if “we could get along with Russia.” Unlike most of the country’s elites, he vowed to seek Moscow’s cooperation on global issues, accepted some U.S. share of blame for the two countries’ sour relations and acknowledged “the right of all nations to put their own interests first.”

This suggested a dramatic turn in U.S.-Russian relations—an end to the encirclement push, curtailment of the hostile rhetoric, a pullback on economic sanctions, and serious efforts to work with Russia on such nettlesome matters as Syria and Ukraine.

This budding initiative now lies in tiny shards upon the floor of global politics. We don’t yet know, and perhaps never will, the full story of what happened with regard to Russia’s effort to tilt America’s 2016 presidential election. And we can’t yet form a full picture of the actions undertaken on the part of the Trump team or the president himself to collude with official Russia in U.S. internal politics. It might be very serious; it might not.

But it almost doesn’t matter. Trump’s Russia initiative appears dead. The anti-Russian elites have won the day, whatever the merits of the case or wherever the facts now lead. The president looks hapless on the issue. New sanctions are coming, whether he wants them or not. NATO expansion and the West’s Ukraine meddling will continue. Encirclement is firmly in place.

It’s difficult to envision where this could lead, short of actual hostilities. Russia’s fundamental national interests, the ones Trump was prepared to accept, will almost certainly render such hostilities inevitable.

I didn’t hear Trump come out in support of racism or fascism. I heard Trump say that both sides were responsible for the violence at Charlottesville.

There were maybe a few dozen of the over 1,000 people waving the nazi or fascist flags and symbols. One guy looks he had freshly taken his huge nazi flag out of the box given its fold marks. This same guy has been subsequently photographed with the ANTIFA marchers. Make of it what you will.

You’re right about Trump’s statement, which I thought was fair, reasonable and diplomatic. My question is, why would Eric Zuesse vilify Trump on such, well, trumped up charges? Zeusse, as we know, is against the establishment. The least he could do is support the one man in power in the US who also opposes the establishment. To me, Zuesse in this case seems either hypocrital or reactionary. Yet I’ve had long email discussions (arguments) with him, and he claims to practice objectivity at the most rigorous scientific level. I have nothing against Zuesse. He really knows his stuff about MH17. Maybe a better question is, and I mean this sincerely, why did Saker post this on? I know Saker sometimes publishes things he disagrees with. Which is fine. But I’d be curious about Saker’s opinion.

I disagree with your premise (that Zuesse vilifies Trump). If he does, then so do I. Trump deserves all the disgust he gets as he has shown himself to be incompetent, dishonorable (he betrayed his best friend) and, worst of all for a President, hopelessly spineless and weak. Sure, I rather have a weak Trump than a strong Hillary, but that ain’t saying much.
But the real point of the article is not Trump, but Obama. Read it again, you are missing the main reason why I posted this article and emailed Eric to thank him for an article I consider both brilliant and most timely.
The Saker

I do not understand why many Americans who are against the establishment refuse to be critical of Trump.

Trump sold out his voters from the very start of his presidency. Many Americans are so desperate that they are in complete denial of this fact.

When will the Americans call out evil and corruption when they see it, regardless of who they voted for or who is committing this corruption ?

When will Americans self-reflect, self-criticize and hold their disastrous leaders to account ? ……When they becoming nuked or their dollar collapses ?

Do they not understand that this is self-destructive behavior ?
Do they not realize the absolute madness of this way of thinking ? Doing things over and over again , and just hoping and hoping until its too late ?

If the people that voted for Trump do not call out Trump on his betrayals, how do you expect to convince people who did not vote for him that the establishment is corrupt and they should unite to confront and challenge the corrupt leadership in the US ?

It seems to me that Eric is misrepresenting Obama in just the same way the left are misrepresenting Trump.
One could just as easily say that Obama was defending free speech and/or he was rubbing You Know Who’s nose in it.

Not that I’m defending …..
When you make a false or dubious or even presumptuous inference, what follows sounds like propaganda, whether it’s coming from good guys like Eric or the creeps he writes about.

But Trump doesn’t have his hands on the levers of power – he is different in that he is not in the elite’s script, he wasn’t supposed to be president, so can hardly be called fascist since doesn’t have the power to do fascist things. I am not defending him, I’m saying he is irrelevant to what should really concern us.

Whatever is driving the hatefest within the US whilst enacting a terrifyingly belligerent foreign policy outwith the US must surely be our prime concern in these times. What is really going on?

I realise, Saker you can’t respond to every comment but I wonder if you would consider writing an article along the lines of “What the Kremlin makes of all this” .

No – not the noise of the street protests, but the ever encroaching militarism and aggression towards Russia, (yes, I know it’s other countries too but always mainly Russia) such events taking place so fast that we have hardly digested one act such as the latest sanctions, when already we are reading about another one such as the slew of new US military bases on the Black Sea in Ukraine and next door in Moldova. And today the post from “War is Coming” above

I am sure you are well aware more than most, of the long list of aggressions starting from the minute Russia dared to try and stand on it’s feet post – Yeltsin – and now accelerating.

We certainly see the US going single mindedly in one direction only and no opposition to the warpath visible within the country. Horrifying really..

But what do the Kremlin think about all this lunacy?

What do you think they think?

It is vital for all of us because whilst we can think what we like it is Moscow that has to act.
Is their view –

1) The US is just going through an unstable post election period and if we keep calm things will improve?

2) We just have to watch things day by day but there is no immediate risk of a major crippling first strike attack? That can’t be a policy though can it?

3) They are going to attack us so we must rapidly find a way to neutralise them without war.
eg along with China, dumping treasury bonds? { Who cares what it does to the “economy” if the alternative is nuclear war?}

To me it just gets more dangerous by the week. However, there must be many unknown factors at play and behind the scenes people actively trying to ensure we do not just slip into a war.

I am sure your knowledge and through people you know an article such as I have suggested would be very valuable.

OK, but it would have been (much) better if Zuesse had quoted Trump accurately.
If Zuesse had found a way to make his point without misquoting and misrepresenting what Trump said in response to this situation and further questioning about his response to this situation. I see nothing wrong whatsoever with how Trump expressed himself.

There is no excuse, IMO, for this kind of inaccuracy and distortion. Very surprised at Zuesse qua reporter/journalist/fact checker. He, and this site, must stick to the high road for accuracy. IMHO.
Katherine

I’m not quite sure what he is yet (other than a Hillary wrecking ball, which I do approve of…) but if he were really a racist, or more fascist than his principal detractors are, I am pretty damned sure more convincing video clips of such racism would be all over the MSM.

So far the only frightening racism I see, beyond a few FBI controlled idiots is the Russophobic anti-slavic racism by those anti-trumpers screaming the most about the horrid racist Trump.

Another point that is central to the narrative of this incident adn that seems to be getting dropped out of the story is that the United Group had a permit to rally and had worked out the details of their event with the C’ville police. The counterprotesters did not. It is outrageous that the police did not defend the group that had the legal permit. As did the ACLU.

Having just read “I Heard you Paint Houses,” about the way the Mob works and how it can or could in its heyday get the police to “stand down” and “disappear” as needed, this whole thing stinks.

A wonderfully clear and illuminating article, Mr Zeusse. It is not too surprising given, how low we have collectively sunk, but it is shameful indeed that it cannot get wider distribution in the more mainstream media.

UNITED NATIONS — The United States says it was one of three countries to vote against a U.N. resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism over freedom of speech issues and concerns that Russia was using it to carry out political attacks against its neighbors.

The resolution entitled “Combating glorification of Nazism, Neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,” was approved by the U.N.’s human rights committee on Friday with 131 in favor, 3 against with 48 abstentions.

That was a false report, but it was the only mainstream one in the U.S., and I’ve discussed in my next article (which might take a few days pending approval for publication), a comprehensive one about that issue at the U.N. and about its non-coverage in the U.S., how and why CBS got it wrong, and how and why the U.S. (Obama Administration) lied and changed their lies, about why the U.S. voted “No” on it. Anyway, to make the long story short: Palau backed out, and Obama desperately needed a third “No” vote, which turned out to be Canada, which had served that same function before at the U.N., as America’s last-ditch stooge when not enough others could be found.

“”The Russian Air Force destroyed another large column of ISIS fighters that was heading to the area of the city of Deir ez-Zor, where international terrorists are trying to regroup and equip their last base in Syria,” the statement says.

The strike on the terrorist column destroyed around 20 SUVs armed with large-caliber weapons and mortars. Russian jets have also taken out a number of armored vehicles, including tanks, the ministry added.

The ministry noted that IS terrorists, having suffered heavy losses in Raqqa and Homs provinces, are now trying to make their last stand in Deir ez-Zor. The defeat of IS in the province will probably mark the defeat of the entire terrorist organization.

“The defeat of ISIS in the Deir ez-Zor region will be a strategic defeat for the international terrorist group in the Syrian Arab Republic,” the defense ministry underlined, echoing the words of Russia’s defense minister, Sergey Shoigu.”

While I certainly agree with Zuesse about Obama, and the hypocrisy of the media on Trump vs. Obama, I wish he (Zuesse) would learn to make his case in a more credible manner. He begins by telling us that Obama “was the only U.S. President who at the United Nations defended nazism” without giving us any details. There’s no quotation, context, or even a date. Basically, then, we just get a supposition. Later in the article, Zuesse mentions that only the alternate media have printed his articles. Given his disregard for evidence to support his claims, I am not surprised.

Does anybody here know which speech by Obama at the U.N., and which specific passage of the speech Zuesse is referring to? If so, please enlighten me.

Thanks for your input on this, but the reason I didn’t provide the link when saying that, in my article’s introduction or “Abstract” up-front, but only subsequently in the presentation of the case (in the body of the article), is that that’s the custom and it’s a good one — not to provide documentation in an up-front summary of the case that’s to be presented, but instead in the actual presentation of the case.

As regards your question “Does anybody here know which speech by Obama at the U.N., and which specific passage of the speech Zuesse is referring to?” a President or other CEO “speaks” via his/her actions, the instructions to his subordinates, who carry out his instructions (or else get fired for not doing so). Obama, in this case at the U.N., as in almost all of the reliable “statements” that he made as the President, did not make those “statements” by lies from his own mouth, but instead by his actions: what he privately instructed his U.N. Ambassador (or other appointee) to do. Anyone who judges any head-of-state or other CEO by what he says instead of by what he does (via his organization’s actions) is a fool who is inviting liars to deceive him. My article here has Obama ‘speaking’ via his actions, not by his (usually) lying words. And it documents those ‘statements’ via its links, all of which are to what I consider the highest quality, the most reliable, sources — either directly, or via the links within the articles that I am directly linking to about the given matter.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Unfortunately, I still don’t find a date or any specifics to support your claims. You say you provide links to what you consider “the highest quality, the most reliable, sources” but it seems you are sourcing your own previous articles as evidence. I’m not sure why you insist on making it so difficult for readers to simply learn the date and context in which Obama defended Nazism at the U.N., but I am sure that you’re on the verge of losing at least this reader.

Zuesse speaks truth to power in this excellent article.
Trump is a truly despicable human being.
Obama was worse in that because he killed a huge number of civilians, in illegal, wars of choice.
Thanks Saker, for allowing such high quality writers like Zuesse.

With all due respect to the author, and while I agree with much of his premises, I take exception to the notion that it was wrong for Trump to call out violence on both sides.

I believe that Trump was absolutely correct to ascribe the responsibility and blame for violence on both sides. Had he failed to do so he could have been accused of failing to do his due diligence and judiciously condemn and call for accountability on “all sides” rather then fan the flames of passion and violence on only one side of the dispute.

Any fair, objective and impartial viewing and critical analyses of the countless videos filmed at the scene at the time of the protests in Charlottesville will clearly confirm that as being a matter of record and visually recorded historical fact.

I have personally viewed many dozens of them and if anything the overwhelming responsibly lies squarely with the self professed anti fascist and anti white supremacist side of the ledger. Scene after scene one can see with ones own eyes that the provocation and violent attacks where overwhelming initiated by the “anti fascist” protestors side. With some rare exceptions the so called right supremacist side counter acted self-defensively having first been mercilessly provoked and physically attacked after the police had irresponsibly corralled them in and then forced marched them out of the park and back into the streets to face a mob of highly agitated protesters while themselves standing down and offering them absolutely no protection whatsoever as they thought to exit through a gauntlet of angry counter protestors that lined the streets and that did everything in their power to humiliate and provoke them to react and at times counter attacked their tormentors.

Now I have absolutely no truck or sympathy with either fringe freaks side here but the facts remain that to whatever degree of responsibly you want to relegate on either side, the truth of the matter attests to Trumps original statement that attributes the violence to both sides being a verifiable self-evident fact.

Notwithstanding that only after the fact, the sad, lamentable and tragic death of a women protester by the (possibly schizophrenic?) driver of a Ram Charger that rammed her and others either as a premeditated act of terrorism or as a result of being provoked by his car first being attacked and stuck by Anti-fa protesters with sticks (which at least one video seems show) and thus posibbily reacting in panic or anger or both. Neither of which is remotely excusable and justifiable but to be determined in a court of law as mitigating circumstances that may have affected his violent behavior or not.

Whatever the case the whole affair was a total disgrace to the nation and pending more information appears to have been a set up to discredit Trump from the get go and with both sides possibly having been instigated and funded by George Sorro’s and his deep state ilk in order fan yet more civil strife or a colored revolution so as to topple the Trump presidency.

Only time and more evidence will prove or disprove the above “conspiracy theory”.

Meantime just look at all the visual evidence recorded on You Tube and decide for yourself if Trump was remiss and wrong (which he often is in his assessments of the facts and reality) or not here, by calling out “all sides” for perpetrating unlawful violence.

Had he not done so he would have effectively endorsed the violence perpetrated on one side and exonerated them of any responsibility and accountability. Now is that what we can expect and accept from the leader of a nation. Obama famously and cowardly distinguished himself by never even attempting to calm and quell racial tensions and violent protests. After all that was part of his constituency and part of the plan to divide and conquer the American population by way of racial and sexual identity politics, so as to split up and a relegate everyone into two opposing warring political party camps. It worked for him then and he and Hilary are doing every thing in their power to make it work again now.

So in closing, I’m not taking either side here, be it called Alt left or Alt right or whatever, we are all one and will either all become free or slaves to the Nazi oligarchy that’s playing us all by endlessly sowing strife and division among us for their own interests and ends.

Trump for all his faults called it exactly for what it was, both sides are blind ignorant idiots being lead to slaughter by slaughtering each other, no different as what they’ve got their proxy Wahhabi jihadist butchers doing in the MENA and the rest of the world on their behalf, kill each other off and topple all historic monuments in the name righteous totalitarianism so a to usher in the Nazi Third (now Forth?) Reich’s dream of a New World Order.

While I doubt that Trump has the intellect or moral courage, integrity and fortitude to do anything much about it and not himself end up joining the tyrants, at least he’s truthfully pointed out some of the more blatantly obvious, lies and hypocritical contradictions inherent in the American and trans-nationalist globalist oligarchies agenda to enslave us all and rule the world. If nothing else he at least deserves some credit for challenging their corrupt media and bringing to light some of the gross contradictions in their propaganda war against us all.

It’s up to us now to pick up the ball from here on in and not succumb to their attempts to farther divide us. Trump seems to have instinctively or by whatever means recognized that dirty trick and called it for what it was. Both sides left and right are ponds in a greater game and equally ignorant of a greater agenda. They are both respectively freak fringes of society but unfortunately the so called left liberal element has the full force of the main stream media propaganda machine behind them and are seemingly still in the majority of public consensus.

While Trump is still largely an unknown and to date rates only marginally better than warmonger Obama and his appointed and anointed successor Hillary, let’s count our blessings that at least she’s not the commander in chief or that Pence is as yet, lest a full scale nuclear war would have already engulfed us.

Meanwhile let’s be fair and support Trump when he’s right as in Charlottesville and hold his feet to the fire when he’s totally wrong as with the bombing of Syria, and his insane threatening of Iran and North Korea not to mention starting an economic war with China.

‘We are living in interesting times’ (read as totally insane times) and it’s therefor imperative that we pick our friends and enemies as well as our battles diligently. Trump in this case at least spoke the undeniable truth, that the “alt left” was indeed the main instigator of most of the physical attacks and violence perpetrated against the “alt right”. No two ways around that fact given all the available evidence.

I have found that a number of my American friends were somehow outraged by Trump’s reaction, and when I probe a bit further, it comes out that they support Antifa and seem to believe (project?) the idea that Antifa is somehow “protecting” them from Neo-Nazis on the streets. They haven’t watched any videos or really studied what happened at Charlottesville, beyond looking at a few lame articles from the MSM that came through their social media.

When I ask if they think it’s okay to deny Americans the rights to free speech and freedom of assembly, their reaction is one of confusion, like they want to say “yeah, but…” except that only now are they starting to connect the dots. If I press further to ask if they believe in the US as a constitutional republic subject to the rule of law, they get even more confused and ask me if I support alt-right Nazis.

American society seems to be suffering from a kind of collective atrophy of civic understanding. Even highly-intelligent people are getting pulled into the hysteria around these conflicts. They don’t grasp the opportunism of Trump’s enemies and the way they are cynically using Charlottesville to take him down. Scott Adams recently published an interesting article about this:

Thanks for your positive endorsement and comments here, as sometimes I feel completely alone and crazy in my rants against the prevalent culture of gross hypocrisy and mass hysteria even among my own friends and family, many of whom are unknowingly and unconsciously completely entranced by main stream media’s penetrating propaganda.

This really isn’t about untrammelled freedom of speech and assembly. I also have serious doubts regarding the nefarious string-pullers who orchestrated this event.
But with freedom comes an expected level of civic responsibility in a democracy.

The original demonstrators were not denied freedom of speech or assembly–they had a permit for their demonstration.
What they don’t have and shouldn’t expect is carte-blanche approval for their views once that free speech and assembly is exercised. They can and should expect a protest, free counter-speech and counter-assembly. This is supposed to be a democracy and the string-pullers orchestrating the action were counting on the reaction, That’s why this was initiated in the first place.

The counter-protestors didn’t turn out for a statue that has been quietly sitting in a park unmolested for almost 100 years, They turned out because the alt-right has, in recent times, aligned itself or identified itself or been identified with people proud to support overt racism and Nazism.

That wont go unchallenged, nor should it, by people whose grandparents died fighting wars against the horror when it reared its ugly head.

There is no moral equivalence between democracy and Nazism. Its not a battle about symbols for anyone aware of the history and appalling human consequences of fascism in Europe that resulted in the carnage of WW2.
Moral equivalence is a dangerous game to play, it opens the door to complete lawlessness. You will then find, to your cost, what moral equivalence can mean in the real world, its neither free nor pretty.

Moral equivalence is a particularly dangerous game to play for an elected leader in a democracy, who is supposedly chosen to lead and guide the rest of us in our own best interests.

We don’t have wise leaders so have to become wise ourselves.
Democracy requires eternal vigilance. Set aside for a moment the soft nazism Obama and most other western leaders currently practice. We know from history where this leads and it ain’t any different this time.

I am a Brit, leftist all my life right up until Tony Blair, a proponent of soft, creeping nazism, took control of the Labour Party and there was no-one left for me to vote for.

This has happened before, repeatedly, in my country and in yours. We ordinary people need to wise up and get a clue and prevent the inevitable same outcome. The stakes are too high otherwise.

I am not a zionist and have fought fascism and oppression all my life. I don’t much like what Antifa has morphed into either but I like the prospect of hard fascism even less. Hard fascists are opportunists, like all politicians and they have seized this opportunity to take their ideology mainstream but there is no moral equivalence to their ideology.

Fascism is the ideology of the 1% though they will never display an overt symbol like those fools and useful idiots did with their swastika flags in Charlottesville. The 1% and/or their well-paid advisors know their history and learn from it, why shouldn’t we, the 99%?

The fringe far right or so called “Alt right” white Nazi supremacist” group that had legally by court order obtained a permit to assemble in a park in Carlottesville (illegally denied them at the last minute by a mayor and his police force that declared a state of emergency so as in order to mussel them) from peacefully exercising their constitutional right to publicly protest and freely speak out against the destruction of a historic civil war monument were of absolutely no threat whatsoever to anyone. Excepting to the virtuous self righteous politically correct left neo fascist that just like ISIS want to destroy all historical monuments in the US, suppress all free speech if not preferably chop off the heads of all those that express a different religious and ideological point of view than what they consider ideologically and politically correct. Is the left so feeble minded and mentally weak that it can’t either just ignore them and give them no publicity at all given that they represent practically nobody at all or at best some 0.01% of the population or challenge them verbally in a debate in a principled way without resorting to violence, causing the tragic death of a misguided woman protester by a provoked crazed schizophrenic Ram Charger car diver. I challenge you to tell me how you and the historic monument destroyers are any different from ISIS or the Nazi fascists that burned books and brutally murdered anyone that disagreed with them? Freedom of thought, expression and free speech either applies equally to everyone no matter their opinion or it is a sham and totally meaningless. From what I gather your essentially saying here is that only those that agree with your political views have any right to speak. I’m sorry to have to inform you but no, there’s neither a red or a Nazi hiding under everyone’s bed.

“From what I gather your essentially saying here is that only those that agree with your political views have any right to speak.”

Not at all. I think the removal of historical monuments is stupid in the extreme and that the political correctness that demands their removal abhorrent. It is an attempt to airbrush history and that never works for long.
I think it equally stupid to defend those monuments with torchlight processions and fascist flags, knowing what a reaction that would provoke and the probability of violence happening. Both sides came prepared with helmets, shields and staves. One person was killed and many injured as a result.

I am not taking sides in this, I’m not a pacifist either. What I am saying is that there are other options than provoking violence or immediately resorting to violence to defend one’s views—- but that wouldn’t serve the purposes of the 1% or 0.01%, whatever the figure is, half so well.

Point I’m making as you’ve already alluded to here is exactly the same thing, why the F would Anti-fa and BLM make a great big F..ing deal out of a none issue and even bother going out in the streets heatedly and violently protesting an irreverent group of white fringe supremacist freaks unless they’re an equally ideologically insane fringe hooded and black masked group of freaks that are paid off “hire a crowd” protester agents of Sorro’s? Maybe if those A holes had just stayed home in their moms basements playing killer video games and eating freezer dinners no violence would have happened and the dear young women would not have been run over by a nut case and lost her life. It was entirely the left, orchestrated, played and paid for by Sorro’s that made a none event into a great big F..ing deal for the benefit of Hillary and the Democrats to paint Trump as a supremacist racist supporter and topple him from the presidency. Do you get the big picture and see the game plan now?

The pictures I can see are those from Ukraine’s Maidan, the same playbook in use. It isn’t about Trump either who is just a pawn, now completely toothless. He ran a good campaign, being all things to all people and making promises he clearly didn’t expect to fulfil. That’s what politicians do before every election.
Your 0.01% don’t care who is in the Oval Office, Trump, Hillary or Kid Rock so long as the system that works so well for them now keeps delivering to their bottom line. And if that means endless war and carnage– and it does– they’re fine with that too.
That system, government and corporations working together against the rest of us is called afascism.

Trump is not going to save anyone or ‘MAGA’, its unlikely that he ever was but its pretty certain now where his loyalties lie.
It ain’t with the likes of you and me.

I denounced Trump when he let himself be fooled by the “Assad gas attack” false flag and fired those missiles, but was pretty delighted when he cut off financial support to the FSA “moderate terrorists” a few weeks later.
I honestly think Trump is none of those things — racist, fascist, etc — that the left calls him. He means well, but he’s completely out of his depth. He has no coherent policy and is currently being manipulated by neoconservative traitors to the USA.

“Is the left so feeble minded and mentally weak that it can’t either just ignore them [the fringe far right] and give them no publicity at all given that they represent practically nobody at all or at best some 0.01% of the population or challenge them verbally in a debate in a principled way without resorting to violence”

Sadly, this is what I see happening too.

It’s like an admission of defeat, that they (the Left) have so little confidence in their own values (though they will not admit this is the case), that they must resort to violence. At bottom, it seems they fear that the discourse of the fringe far right is actually more compelling than their own, so the only “solution” is violence.

Looking at the “free speech” protest in Boston, it appeared that there were maybe 50-70 rightists, and 15,000+ counter-protestors.

Has the fringe right really grown significantly in the past decade? I’m skeptical, but it would be interesting to have more numbers if possible.

there is no left/right – they are all Capitalist’s (right). Consumed by the myopic vision foisted upon you designed to create more havoc, you consider the minutiae as important and the big picture as irrelevant. You, as most of the US, have been swallowed by their game.

I’m with you on the big picture. You and I may agree that the left/right distinction is not so important in the larger scheme of things, but for millions of Americans it’s still very important. We could look down our noses at their “myopic vision” but right now I’m just trying to understand the conflict between them, and how it may play out. More Americans are talking about “civil war 2.0” now, and there is a sense that the situation is extremely volatile.

It seems that “the liberal Left” has been triggered by what they believe to be a growing threat of “alt-right” nationalists, far right, white supremacists, etc.

My question was simply: are there really that many more far rightists now than five or ten years ago (or, let’s say, before Obama’s administration), or is this “alt-right threat” more of a liberal-left delusion?

“What they don’t have and shouldn’t expect is carte-blanche approval for their views once that free speech and assembly is exercised.”

What?????
Nonsense.
Where were you during civics class?
You don’t have to approve of anyone’s views. But you must defend their right to state their views. That is the First Amendment.

Unpermitted counterprotesters who are trying to shut down the expression of views are not the responsibility of the original permitted group!!
This notion is really bizarre.
This is the same mental jiu jitsu that makes Trump responsible for all of the fringies who support him.
If black nationalists, orbat-wielding BLM extremists, support Obama purely because he is black, does that make him responsible for their actions?
If you don’t know the correct answer, you are hopelessly confused.
Katherine

He was not ‘right’ about Charlottesville and has been a racist all of his pampered, made up, delusional life. Tens of millions died behind that nazi crap and having them show up with KKK punks with their hoods off and store bought torches was and is a disgrace and a stain on the his country for officially allowing them to ‘peacefully’ condone death and slavery. Some case you made.

I basically agree. But this is a weakness with many called leftists that they dont like to find conspiracies on the left side of spectrum, even when it is widely reported in alt-media and beyond doubt. It is as if the leftist cause would be harmed by pointing out the occurence of infiltration by the elites. Maybe they subconsciously fear that the whole leftist project will collapse since such infiltration is not a recent addition but was there from the early beginning.
I think there is a place for a leftist perspective even though I personally can live without it. And I see no reason why it couldnt withstand disclosures like the above mentioned. {If they are not all on pay by the elites :-) }
Sofar I havent encountered leftists, even among the most well-informed who want to touch such things.

And if Sorro’s indeed ripped them off, that shouldn’t be of any great surprise to them coming from a remorseless Jewish traitor of his own people whom as a youth helped rob entire Jewish families of their jewels and fortunes just prior to them being shipped off to concentration camps. Nor be unexpected from someone that can without a twig of moral consciousness sink a whole countries economy by financially manipulating their currency. Not to mention financing countless “colored Revolutions” around the entire world costing untold lives and causing endless misery for millions of hapless people.

May he now just F..ing die already and God have mercy on his twisted and depraved soul as I don’t have that capacity of forgiveness in me as of yet.

Great article thank you Eric. I have read your articles since very early on in the Ukrainian coup. You are spot on with your analysis….

There is a historical reference to the ethnic cleansing campaign in the Donbass that i believe has never been voiced. In 1943 Bandera’s followers massacred 70,000 Poles the majority of whom were unarmed men, women, and children. This massacre took place in Volyn Western Ukraine on the Polish border. The political leadership of the OUN had realised that the Germans might lose the war. Because of the presence of the Polish population the OUN leadership had decided to get rid of that population to prevent Poland’s claim to Volyn.

The current political leadership in Ukraine is attempting to repeat history and remove any claim that Russia might have on the Donbass due to the presence of the Russian population. Obama is not concerned about who will win the next election, if he was at all concerned things would be different in Ukraine. Obama knows that if he murders enough people he can bring any government to power, and while his fascist regime is quietly murdering all opposition it is of zero concern.

It gets even worse….Here is what the average Ukrainian does not understand……Without the DNR/LPR they would be sent into a war against Russia by Obama/Trump. A war they cannot win, with millions of victims. Obama now Trump wants the Russian World to wage war against themselves.

In the Donbass they are fighting for the Russian World which includes Ukraine. The Donbass is a buffer against a war with Russia, Putin is doing everything he can to ensure a war in the Russian World does not occur.

I note a lot of analysis with regards to the 180 notice that the foolish political class in pax-amaericana has done.
Uno: The Russians along with their oligarchs have all the cards. IE: Gas Do u really think that the Germans r going to be extorted to buying expensive lng from fraked US . Don’t think so.
Due: Most european elites and agricultural industry are riding this out until December then bets are all off the sanctions will be lifted for the political elite in Europe no very well if they continue with these sanctions it will be political suicide on a massive scale. They will not be able to pull off another Macron of mass deception. The french are already on to him and his deep elitist ties.
Tre:The Russians ,Chinese and Iranian’s had already calculated this long b4 Trump the frump became Potus. Hence all was already predictable from the onset . Difference was the slight chance that the pax-americana would realise a win win situation is far better than suicide.
Quattro: De dollarisation has been happening at an ever slow pace in order 4 western fiat currency economies to hopefully restructure their financial systems to weather the storm. Instead the west just doubled down and kept kicking the can down the road.
Cinque: Old slavic saying threats and aggression are all sign of weakness and if any one has ever studied Russian history slavs do not respond to threats . IE: All the members of Putin entourage still refer to the west as partners and have always kept their channels of communications open . It is called diplomacy.
Conclusion: If people want to follow the anglo-zionist hasbra then b free 2 do so but to read anyhting as concrete and absolute about it it is really falling for propagandistic ploys and is giving to much credence to a dying empire anglo-zionst/pax-americana washington consensus has shown it self for what it is . Dying days or a Marie Antionnette moment . The emperor has no clothes and the wage gap which happens to be greater than the Gilded age has just taken it’s last breathe. The west has entered it’s final; and critical stage of self implosion and we the sheeple will pay dearly for it.

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.